from Andrina Mellon:

"Hi Ryan,

I finally got around to reading your blog site and I must say it is impressive. I'm not sure about what I expected but either way I like it.

I found some of the comments in the process documents link really interesting. Especially the one sections on the peace protest, I have never protested for any cause. Call me sheltered but i think most people are, it is amazing how ethnic minority groups feel so strongly about certain topics such as young Arabic men with their opinions on the war in Iraq.

My parents are from Ireland and I can only imagine them in the same situation so many years ago. what is this war really about? Religion, oil or safety for the world by stopping the production of bombs?

No Peace in the Peace protest

Andrina"

Ultimately, Andrina's comments would have fit better on my other blog (process documents), but I thought since she's in the MT program as well it might fit better. As well it leads into something that I've been wanting to talk about and that is the process of dialogue in the face of confict. I am struck by the lack of real dialogue happening in the media, especially when someone is questioning the war. While I would admit that I am definitely biased on this subject (I was at the peace rally that Andrina talks about), I think that it is really important to explore this issue.

Here's an email I recieved anonymously about my other blog a month ago from sk8trboi@mchsi.com:

"While I fully support you right to protest (a right granted to you by the men and women who have fought and died for this country), I just don't understand how young people like yourself just don't get it. This conflict with Iraq is only 1 day old and already Saddam has set oil wells on fire (a crime against our environment and all humanity) and fired missles (which you liberals claimed he didn't have) at our troops. What's it going to take to make you realize the danger we face if we sit idol on this?"

The message takes on several tactics that are key to a rhetoric that tries to convince and change minds. First, the person states that he supports my right to free speech. The problem with this admission of support is that it is followed by an assertion that I "don't get it". What this kind of stance does is to undercut the first admission. What it also does is effectively remove my voice. I am part of a larger group that needs to be viewed negatively; I am one of "you liberals" and one of the "young people" who "just don't get it". I feel distanced and othered by this voice. To this voice, I feel I am nothing more than a silly protester that needs to be converted or cut down.

This reminds me of Parker Palmer's discussion of the "culture of fear". He asks us "What is the fear that keeps us beholden to those structures?" Those structures are the structures that separate us from others. He posits an answer:

"We collaborate with the structures of separation because they promise to protect us against one of the deepest fears at the heart of being human - the fear of having a live encounter with alien "otherness," whether the other is a student, a colleague, a subject, or a self-dissenting voice within. We fear encounters in which the other is free to be itself, to speak its own truth, to tell us what we may not wish to hear. We want those encounters on our own terms, so that we can control their outcomes, so that they will not threaten our view of world and self"*

This irrational fear of the other is an important thing to be aware of both in the classroom and in life. I feel so much now like others are trying to restrict my voice and I imagine that this is how many of our students will feel unless the classroom becomes an environment safe enough for students to speak their mind honestly. We cannot let ourselves be mini-McCarthy's holding witchhunts over disagreements of opinion.
--------------------------------------
Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach. (p.37). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

"How do you create classroom dialogue when you have a script?" -Jennifer Robinson

Here's a comment I pulled from a conversation in our prosem class last Wednesday. While the comment was made regarding the difficulty of planning lessons, I think that the comment is appropriate to the problem of facilitating dialogue in the classroom. I would argue that people are socialized into different "scripts" and while this is much different than the scripts that the lesson plan might provide (is it different?), it is important to realize that when we create a script for actions in the real world, we are affected by our subconscious expectations of that world. If we assume that the world is flat, then the questions we ask could affect that assumption and close out the opposing idea that the world is round. What we need to do is build the possibility that there are multiple scripts into our lesson plans. We need to explore with our students those multiple scripts so they don't get caught in a monolithic world view that increasingly does not exist, especially in the ways our world is shrinking communicationally, yet growing culturally. We can no longer assume one truth exists in a pluralistic world.

In the English 30-1 class I partnered in, we discussed a variety of literary theories (ie. Marxism, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, Post-Structuralism, Post-Colonialism) that the students could use to apply to various literary texts. I never would have thought that this would be an option in the high school classroom. When I went through high school, the analysis that literature underwent was very monologic and New Critical, and it wasn't until University that I learned that there were a multitude of ways to read any given text. What I think that this multiplicity of views allows is a greaters set of scripts for students to try on to decide which viewpoints suit them best. For me, Marxism and Post-Structuralism are extremely valuable, whereas Psychoanalysis is a waste of my time, but I wouldn't know that if I wouldn't have had the opportunity to experiment with those scripts. Otherwise, I might have ended up in a dumb silence.

Which leads me to the infamous Mr Konojacki, who, prompted by some of my comments last week, weighs in on the issue of silence:

"Ryan,

You have provoked in me a few more thoughts on silence and the ambiguity thereof. You mention that silence could mean a number of different things to the person who is being silent; however, on that same train of thought, silence also invokes the people around the silent person to act/ react or to think in a particular manner. Your comment exemplifies some of this- if someone is silent, what are they thinking and/or feeling? Is that particular person comfortable with his/her silence? Thus, is it then you who become uncomfortable? Is it you that wants that dialogue to proceed as to remove your own discomfort? Does silence in the listener make the speaker uncomfortable because he/she does not receive any feedback on what has been spoken? More thoughts to ponder...Have you ever just met a person and for some reason have had to spend some time with them (I'm thinking a long car ride)? If silence accompanies this ride, it represents something very uncomfortable; however, if the people in the car know each other and silence ensues, the discomfort is absent. Now, you must be asking yourself, what the heck does this have to do with pedagogy? The point that I am trying to draw out (in somewhat of a long-winded fashion) is that silence, like everything else in the realm of pedagogy, is subjective. The comfort or discomfort with this absence of speech (dialogue) will be received by some students with disdain, while others might quite enjoy silence. I guess what I'm trying to say is, though people like you and I enjoy dialogue, there are many people who prefer just to listen. If a student of this sort was in a class wherein a multi-voiced discourse was taking place, should he/she be encouraged to engage in said discussion? Is the vocalization of one's opinion necessary?

Dave"

The issue of subjectivity is interesting, but also problematic when the written curriculum for language arts is considered. Within the curriculum there are 6 "language arts" that need to be handled in the classroom: reading, viewing, and listening on the receptive side, and writing, representing, and speaking on the other. I realize that what this response does is effectively sidestep Dave's final question, but I think that it is important to note that speaking is an important part of the curriculum and, I would argue, an important part of life. So while students must speak in some fashion in the classroom, the question becomes how do we get them to speak without having them develop negative feelings toward speaking in the classroom. There are any number of methods and approaches to reach this, some of which I have experienced and others I haven't. Small group discussion can reduce the diffusion of responsibility that happens in whole-class discussions. Another that plays into Dave's past suggestion that we give students a moment to think about what they are going to say before they say it, is one that I picked up from Dom Saliani, a teacher at Sir Winston Churchill High School. Before a class discussion, Dom has his students write non-stop for 3-5 minutes about a couple of questions that they are going to discuss. This gives the students an opportunity to develop thoughts about the questions, so that they don't get caught in a discussion "with their pants down", so to speak.

The IP is done. Ryan is sleeepy. Big update tomorrow and then onto this blog's bio of learning destiny on Friday.

Back to the issue of teacher-centered vs. child centered learning thanks to Dave Konojacki, who has been trying to get ahold of me for weeks:

"Ryan,

Though I have not necessarily come to any concrete conclusions regarding teacher centred versus child centred education, I will offer a few more bits of meat in which to chew upon. The "Godfather" of child-centred education, John Dewey, warns against educators choosing between two poles. Encapsulated within this idea is that it is not necessary to enter into a dialogue that captures this either-or paradigm; rather that, both sides of this dichotomy have some merit. Personally, I do not see how one can possibly teach from only one perspective. Child-centred education, in its purest form, essentially espouses the idea of expanding upon a child's whims and desires; however, as Dewey also states, "Nothing but crude can be developed from crude". In other words, if educators relied solely on the child's imagination, how would we ever get to topics like thermodynamics, enlightenment thinking, or the deep meaning of rhetoric and metaphor within the works of Shakespeare? Logically, it would seem then that the onus of creating an interest in the child will thus lie on the teacher. Therefore, in some manner or a another, teacher directed (read: teacher centered) education becomes a necessity. I will close this dicussion, for the time being, with a thought that reverberates with neutrality, neither extreme, or perhaps that is any extreme, has merit. Education, especially education in practice, seems to me, to be a juggling act- what is prudent one day, may not be so the next.

Dave"

I think Dave's idea here is sharp, and brings forward an idea I hadn't previously thought. The great ideas of western civilization will not spring forth fully developed from the student's head. The problematic question lies in the student's ability or opportunity to find those ideas on her own: Can the student depended on to discover those ideas for herself? Like the answer to most of life's important questions, the answer to this question is not simple: it depends. The student's ability, opportunity, or even desire to explore the circumstances of her world unfortunately depends on the individual circumstances of that student. For a child growing up in a household where reading is encouraged, the child is very likely to take up reading as an important pasttime (I know it was like this when I was growing up); reading becomes an authentic activity for that child. For a child in the opposite situation, reading becomes inauthentic and even stupid (this attitude is reinforced by society in general). Some of my grade 10's might call reading "gay".

To extend the Godfather metaphor a little, my anxiety lies in the teacher's ability to give the student's "an offer they can't refuse", so to speak. I am worried about the power imbalance in the classroom a great deal. So much that the utopian classroom situation would have me completely relinquishing my voice. This would require an extreme amount of trust in the students and an extreme willingness to work from the students, so much so that I wonder if this kind of society is possible. I share Dewey's anxiety that neither extreme is plausible, though for some teachers either extreme could be desirable.

Dave pipes up again about silence:

"A few words on the "art" of dialogue. First and foremost, as it has been mentioned on your site, is the necessity of creating a "safe" environment in which students can feel comfortable voicing their opinions without any fear of negative reprisals. Though, I am an ardent supporter of allowing and/or promoting a forum for student discussion, for the purpose of this discussion, I will play the devils advocate. There seems to be an underlying theme to the dialogue that has been expressed so far, in that there is a negative
connotation attached to the word silence. Just as there is merit in dialogue, there is also benevolence to be found in silence and the art of being a good listener. Thus, I think that a caveat must be added to incorporating dialogue into a classroom environment- if dialogue is to have apurpose, it must be purposeful dialogue. That is to say that dialogue in a classroom should be a thoughtful discussion, not just the uttering of whatever comes to the students' minds. Furthermore, how do you create an environment wherein all students have a chance to speak and express their views? All too often, the young lady/ man that needs to thoroughly formulate their thoughts before speaking never gets the chance to express themself, as the dialogue has progressed and they've missed the window of opportunity to speak. I wonder, in order to address this concern, if it would be prudent to encourage a moment of thinking time? Would this also encourage thoughtful dialogue?

Dave"

I agree that my bent toward silence has been extremely negative and I believe that it has something to do with the current state of the world (something I'm going to expand on in a later entry). I really like the idea that a moment of thinking time could help all students formulate a thoughtful response to an issue (freewriting and brainstorming could be excellent tactics here). All too often people can get caught in the heat of a discussion and say things that may not be as insightful or thoughtful as they could be. Silence is interesting because there is always meaning in that absence of language; could the silent be shocked, confused, frustrated, disinterested, upset, or fearful, or could the silent be thoughtful, patient, and interested in what others have to say. It's an interesting dilemma and a question that is certainly not invalid. I've had quite a few people come up to me and say that they really like this site, but don't feel that they have much to add. I honestly think that those people do have a lot to add to this discussion.

I want to talk a little about dialogue in the face of war, but first here's an interesting article from the onion that should prime the pump a little.

I should not be allowed to say the following things about America